(UNITED STATES) — U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told Senator Eric Schmitt in a January 9, 2026 letter that DHS is reevaluating the Optional Practical Training program and its STEM extension under an “America First” immigration policy.
Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, publicly released the DHS letter on February 26, 2026, framing the review as oversight of a work authorization route used by international students after graduation.
“Consistent with President Trump’s direction and the administration’s America First immigration policy, DHS is reevaluating whether the currently regulatory framework – including the scope and duration of practical training – appropriately serves U.S. labor market, tax, and national security interests and remains aligned with congressional intent,” Noem wrote.
The review signals potential changes to the scope, duration, or eligibility of post-study work benefits, including cuts to the time graduates can work in the United States after finishing their degrees.
Schmitt attacked the program in his public release of the DHS letter, writing: “Today, however, the [OPT] program functions as a cheap-labor pipeline for big business—and a backdoor into the U.S. job market for foreign workers. This system boxes young Americans out of the workforce, discriminates against American workers in favor of foreign labor, and suppresses wages.”
DHS has already placed “Practical Training” on a regulatory track for changes, listing it under RIN 1653-AA97 in the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda at the “Proposed Rule Stage,” a status that points toward amending existing regulations rather than pursuing a new law from Congress.
The agenda entry, RIN 1653-AA97 – Practical Training, identifies the program as a target for proposed rule changes as DHS weighs how to reshape practical training for international students.
Noem’s letter also highlights a legal vulnerability that supporters of an overhaul have long emphasized, arguing the programs rest on regulation rather than a statute passed by Congress.
“The Optional Practical Training program, and related training opportunities, are provided for in DHS regulations at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(10) and were established through regulation rather than direct statutory text,” Noem wrote.
That distinction matters because it can allow an administration to shorten or eliminate OPT and the STEM extension through notice-and-comment rulemaking, without new legislation.
The scope of DHS’s review targets the duration and eligibility of standard OPT, which provides 12 months of work authorization, and the STEM extension, which provides an additional 24 months for eligible graduates.
By focusing on how long graduates can work and who qualifies, DHS is reviewing the parts of the program that many international students use to build U.S. work experience and pursue longer-term employment sponsorship.
In her letter, Noem tied the re-evaluation to three themes: protecting U.S. workers, fraud prevention, and national security, including vulnerabilities within the Student and Exchange Visitor Program and “risks associated with the high volume of foreign students in sensitive technical fields.”
The letter’s language sets up a review that can tighten eligibility, reduce the work window, or both, with DHS weighing what it called U.S. labor market, tax, and national security interests.
The debate has immediate resonance for students in science and engineering fields because the 24-month STEM extension is widely viewed as the prime target for reductions in a review centered on duration and sensitive technical fields.
Current rules described by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in its STEM OPT Extension Overview provide the baseline that DHS’s review could rewrite.
In practical terms, the largest group of participants stands to feel the most disruption if DHS reduces the overall work window. Indian students represent the biggest share of OPT and STEM OPT participants, and there are currently over 300,000 Indian students in the U.S.
The scale of the program extends far beyond one nationality. Recent data from Academic Year 2023/24 showed over 242,000 international students participated in OPT/STEM OPT, making the program a major bridge between U.S. education and U.S. employment for foreign graduates.
While DHS’s letter did not set out specific new limits, its emphasis on “scope and duration” puts the length of work authorization at the center of the review.
The STEM extension, which adds an additional 24 months to the 12-month OPT period, provides the longest post-study work runway. That runway can matter for students seeking employer sponsorship through the annual H-1B lottery, since a longer period can translate into more chances to be selected.
DHS’s re-evaluation also comes alongside a separate USCIS action affecting processing of benefit applications for some nationalities. A USCIS Policy Memorandum dated December 2025/January 2026 placed a “hold” on benefit applications, including OPT and STEM OPT, for individuals from 39 countries deemed high-risk under Presidential Proclamation 10949/10998.
India is not on that list, but the memorandum also described a broader “re-review” of already approved benefits for those who entered after January 20, 2021, signaling increased scrutiny across nationalities even as the 39-country hold targets a defined group.
Schmitt’s press office presented the DHS letter as a commitment secured through his request, publishing it in a release titled Upon Senator Schmitt’s Request, DHS Commits to Review and Re-Evaluate OPT Program.
The senator’s framing highlights a political argument that OPT and the STEM extension distort the labor market, an issue DHS echoed in different terms by grounding its review in U.S. labor market and tax interests.
At the same time, critics and economists argue the program supports U.S. innovation by supplying talent to tech and engineering employers, especially in fields where U.S. firms recruit heavily from American universities’ international student populations.
The letter’s reference to fraud prevention and SEVP also points to a line of scrutiny that can extend beyond duration limits. A regulatory overhaul can tighten program guardrails, increase compliance burdens, or redefine what counts as eligible training and employment.
For international students already planning their post-graduation years, the uncertainty is concentrated around timing and eligibility. OPT and STEM OPT are structured as time-limited benefits, so even a modest change to definitions of eligible degrees, qualifying employers, or reporting rules can affect whether graduates receive work authorization at all.
The regulatory marker in the Unified Agenda, RIN 1653-AA97, also signals that DHS can pursue changes through the administrative process. Proposed rules move through public notice and comment before finalization, and they can reshape programs that rest on agency regulations rather than statute.
Noem’s letter explicitly pointed to that regulatory foundation. By emphasizing that OPT “were established through regulation rather than direct statutory text,” DHS placed the legal basis at the center of the review as it weighs whether to rewrite, narrow, or remove the work authorization provisions.
The potential impact extends to U.S. universities that rely on international enrollment and market the ability to gain U.S. work experience after graduation. Post-study work opportunities can influence whether students choose the United States over other destinations.
Students in technical fields face a particularly direct exposure because the STEM extension links work authorization to specific educational credentials and fields of study. A review that targets sensitive technical fields and national security concerns can intersect with STEM eligibility rules, employer requirements, and compliance checks.
Even without immediate rule changes, the combined signals—a formal DHS re-evaluation, a listed rulemaking item in the Unified Agenda, and heightened scrutiny through USCIS holds for certain countries—set expectations that OPT work rules and STEM OPT may face tighter controls.
Noem’s letter framed DHS’s next steps as an assessment of whether current regulations “appropriately serves” U.S. interests and stays aligned with congressional intent, language that can support changes to duration, eligibility, or both.
Schmitt, in turn, cast the program as an unfair labor-market channel in a statement that also previewed the political argument likely to accompany any proposed regulation.
“Today, however, the [OPT] program functions as a cheap-labor pipeline for big business—and a backdoor into the U.S. job market for foreign workers. This system boxes young Americans out of the workforce, discriminates against American workers in favor of foreign labor, and suppresses wages,” Schmitt wrote.
DHS Letter Signals Review of OPT Work Rules, Putting STEM Extensions at Risk
The Department of Homeland Security has initiated a comprehensive review of the OPT and STEM OPT programs. Prompted by an ‘America First’ immigration strategy, the evaluation seeks to determine if these work authorizations appropriately serve U.S. labor markets and national security. Potential changes include reducing the length of time international graduates can work in the U.S. after finishing their degrees, shifting away from current regulatory frameworks.
